Since the beginning of time [0] Since the kingship of David [0] Since his conception by Mary Theotokos [0] Since his baptism in the Jordan [2] Since giving himself up to die [0] Other (including never) [4]

As a theological question, this one is pretty interesting, because the different Gospel accounts tend to have different views on the matter. The Gospel of St Mark seems to support the idea that Jesus became the Messiah and the Son of God when he was baptised by John. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke support the idea that Jesus was the Son of God either since he was conceived by Mary or since the Davidic line of kings was established (arguments can be made either way). The Gospel of St John makes the metaphysical argument that Christ was Christ since before the beginning of time.

And then there are differences of opinion even among theologians and artists. For example, Andrew Lloyd Webber's and Tim Rice's Jesus Christ Superstar on its face seems to be a holistically anti-Gnostic piece of work - focusing on Jesus from the perspective of Iscariot as 'a man; just a man'. JCS comes under a lot of heavy criticism for not showing the Resurrection. However, the epilogue is entitled 'John 19:41' ('Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid.') and is an instrumental reprise of 'Gethsemane' - the theological implication seeming to be that Jesus only became the Christ when he gave himself up to be killed, and to be buried in 'a new tomb'.

So, the question: what are your perspectives on this question? When do you think Jesus became the Christ, from a Scriptural perspective?

When do you think Jesus became the Christ, from a Scriptural perspective?

IMU, he didn't. According to Church History, Jesus was apparently elevated to the status of supreme "God" in Judeo-Christianity by the still young and Judaism-influenced Catholic Church in a similar manner by which the Roman Emperor Claudius was elevated to the status of a god by pagan Romans. I've forgotten the churchy name for the process. Apo-something, I think.

I realize there are posters here who don't want to hear that. But, when history speaks, churchy conjecturalists are obliged to shut-up and listen.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't recall whatever RCC council decreed Jesus as "God," and I'm not interested enough in the issue to look it up. Nonetheless, more specific and accurate information than I can offer is available online at many reputable web sites, particuarly the .edu and non-biased encyclopedia sites.

Author: MagusYanam Posted: 08/12/2009 10:22 PM

Interesting, Heterodoxus. But I think the question of Jesus' divinity is separate from that at hand.

'Christ' itself does not mean 'God' - it simply means the Messiah, or the Anointed One. It is well-established in the Greek Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah; though I agree that the question of Jesus' divinity was ultimately cemented in a later doctrinal assertion (namely the dispute between Athanasius and Arius, settled at the First Council of Nicaea in 325), it is present also in Scripture (most noticeably in the Gospel of St John) and thus must be respected as such. The question, though, was when this role of Messiah came upon him, and how the question is significant.

Personally, I favour the Markean view, simply because I believe that Jesus - being fully human as well as being fully God - ultimately had a choice in the matter of whether or not to become the Messiah. According to Mark, that choice was made when he was baptised into the Jordan from among the crowd that John was baptising.

Author: todd_vetter33 Posted: 10/06/2009 07:29 PM

The daniel 70 weeks prophecy points to Messiah the prince arriving at the time Jesus was baptised in the Jordan River. It was at this time that the Psalm 2:7 Prophecy was fulfilled.

You will want to see what is posted on Pages 36-38 at the following link regarding this topic.

All the information prior is regarding the death and resurrection of Christ. to understand the resurrection of the Son of man. One needs to know truthfully when Christ was concived of the spirit since many do not understand to what extent Christ was really born physically according to the flesh.

God Bless

Author: Cathar1950 Posted: 10/07/2009 11:17 AM

It all depends on which writing you are reading and how it has been interpreted.
It seems for Paul it was at the death and resurrection (as one event) that God appointed him. The unknown author of Mark have it at his baptism while Luke and Matthew's unknown writer have it at his death or resurrection and the unknown author John has him divine before his birth.
Of course Christ could very well also mean anyone that was called or appointed by God with a mission as anointed by God.
It is collection and evolution of ideas well after Jesus that produced what is seen today.

Author: todd_vetter33 Posted: 10/07/2009 06:13 PM

the baptism of Water (repentance) and spirit (truth/Holy spirit/Law written on the hear) is the death and resurrection of the son of man. This is your resurrection as well. On this day you will be sons and daughters of God. Will hear God's voice and do all that Christ did and more.

Until then we are all Pharisees who read historical recordings of men who were sons of God because they could hear God's voice.

V/R
Todd M. Vetter

Author: Heterodoxus Posted: 10/07/2009 07:57 PM

MagusYanam wrote:

Interesting, Heterodoxus. But I think the question of Jesus' divinity is separate from that at hand.

Not necessarily. That Jesus was confused with the -נגיד משׁח(mashiach-nagiyd in the WLC; "Messiah the Prince" in KJV) of Dan. 9:25, and Isa. 9:6-7, appears evident in the Gospels; spec. Matt. 3:10-13; Mark 8:27-30 (note v.30); Luke 7:17-20; 9:18-21 (note v.21); John 6:15.

His followers confused him with "Messiah the Prince" then, and Christians similarly confuse Jesus now. The Catholic Church confused Jesus with--and deified him as--the God of the OT then, and Christians similarly confuse and deify Jesus now.